Relationship between Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, version 0d

1. Introduction

1.1 Abstract

If you are a mobile Web designer you may not be very aware of the need to give special consideration to the needs of people with disabilities, or even that they use mobile devices to access the Web. If you have a disability and access the Web with your mobile device you may not be aware that there are guidelines other than WCAG that improve your experience of the Web. If you work in the field of disability or Web accessibility you may know of the existence of the Mobile Web Best Practices but not be aware that they can improve accessibility for people with disabilities, or that with a little extra effort or insight those best practices could make an even greater difference. This document describes the relationship.

Many Web sites have already adopted the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (hereinafter referred to as [WCAG]). WCAG explains how to make Web content accessible to people with disabilities. In many cases compliance with WCAG is mandatory. The Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 (hereinafter [MWBP]) document specifies Best Practices for delivering Web content to mobile devices. The principal objective is to improve the user experience of the Web when accessed from such devices.

Increasingly, web content is designed to comply with one of these sets of guidelines or best practices. However, misunderstanding of their requirements and the assumptions about the user and device characteristics on which they are based, leads to less than optimal implementation. This document is intended to serve as an added justification or argument for aiming for compliance with either of the recommendations. The benefits include:

• Unnecessary effort and cost is often expended in complying with recommendations seperately or consecutively. This document explains the overlaps between the two recommendations, allowing for greater efficiency.
• Content providers may decide not to adopt another recommendation due to imagined cost. This document explains the overlaps and synergies between the two recommendations, and the ways in which once one recommendation is adopted, the other is less onerous.
• Specialists in the “Web accessibility” or “mobile Web” fields may be unaware of the importance of the other and have difficulty communicating. This document can spread awareness and improve communication by helping specialists in different fields understand that their concerns are often related and parallel. It should help trainers teaching students already experienced in another field using terminology and concepts they are familiar with and without repeating material they already know.
• Vendors of evaluation tools may expend unnecessary effort and cost developing test implementations that already exist for the other recommendation. The information in this document allows them to understand how implementations may be reused or easily adapted.

It may be useful for building the business case for adopting either [WCAG] or [MWBP] in a web site that already complies with one, or for adopting both together. For accessibility, the Web Accessibility Initiative provides a guidance document Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization.

1.2 How this document is organized

Unlike the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, the Mobile Web Best Practices are not prioritised. [MWBP] relate to checkpoints of all the WCAG priorities (1, 2 and 3).

This document considers the relationship of the MWBPs to the WCAG guidelines and checkpoints, and seperately, the inverse relationships. The relationship between MWBP and WCAG is not symmetrical. As an introduction and background it considers first the experience of users with disabilities and the experience of the general user in the mobile context.

1.3 Audience

Readers of this document are expected to be familiar with the creation of Web sites, and to have a general familiarity with the technologies involved, such as Web servers and HTTP. Readers are not expected to have a background in mobile-specific technologies. it is important to understand the other W3C Recommendations to which it refers (see Relationship to other W3C Recommendations).

Our intention is to make it clear to all involved what the Best Practices are, and hence establish a common basis of understanding. As a result of wishing to be clear to those not already involved in the development of mobile friendly content, some of our statements may appear to be obvious or trivial to those with experience in this area.

The document is not targeted solely at developers; others, such as interaction and graphic designers are encouraged to read it.

Many readers of the document are likely to have a good knowledge of general Web accessibility but are concerned with the problems of persons with disabilities in the mobile context.

The following are the use cases the document is expected to cover.

1. A stakeholder has achieved compliance with one recommendation and now aims for compliance with the other. The document must explain what additional effort is required and how to leverage existing investment to comply with the other recommendation in an efficient way.
2. A stakeholder is confused about or is unaware of the relationship between WCAG and Mobile Web Best Practices, seeing them as separate and disjoint, and missing the synergy and the overlap between them. The document must explain how they are similar and how they differ, and that the development and evaluation processes are similar.
3. A content provider is complying with one Recommendation and is aware of similarities with the other. The organization is aware that it can improve usability for all by complying with the corresponding checkpoints or best practices of the other Recommendation (partial compliance) with only a little further effort, but needs to know how to do this. The document must provide information about how to comply, with minimal effort, with the corresponding CPs or BPs of the other Recommendation (union of the two sets).
4. A content provider is committed to compliance with one Recommendation and needs to know the cost of compliance with the other, doing both together. The document should clarify what added effort would be required (difference between the two sets).
5. A content provider wishes to comply with both Recommendations on the same project, as part of a comprehensive content quality strategy, and wishes to integrate the requirements. The document should provide a single coherent, integrated overview of both.
6. A company is developing an evaluation or repair tool (checker). It has developed a tool for one recommendation and is concerned not to waste resources writing new code unnecessarily. It wishes to reuse or adapt code from the existing tool and needs to know how WCAG and MWBP relate to each other as regards testing.
7. A trainer is giving a course on Web accessibility to a group of mobile Web sepcialists (or vice versa) and wishes (a) to understand accessibility in the mobile context and (b) avoid repeating information the students already know.
8. A disability advocacy group is arguing for adoption of WCAG for a mobile-aware Web site. The site owners have produced the counter-argument that it would entail undue hardship and effort. The group needs evidence that many WCAG checkpoints have already been partially complied with and that only a small further effort is needed.
9. A policy maker and a guideline writer are producing comprehensive requirements for Websites and wish to require accessibility and mobile awareness but are confused about the relationsip between the Recommendations. They need to understand the relationships and synergies involved.

1.4 Scope

This document describes the relationships, overlaps and differences between [MWBP] and [WCAG]. It also describes the relationships between content characteristics and the effects these have on users with disabilities in all contexts and all users in the mobile context.

Web accessibility for people with disabilities is beyond the scope of this document except where it especially affects mobile users. It is described in [WCAG]. The needs of users in the mobile Web context is beyod the scope of this document except where it especially affects users with disabilities. It is described in [MWBP].

This document does not create any further requirements beyond those defined in the [MWBP] and [WCAG].

1.5 Relationship to other W3C Recommendations

This document refers to W3C recommendations for Web content accessibility and mobile Web best practices. For Web accessibility the referenced W3C Recommendation is teh Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 . For mobile Web best practices it references the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0.

At the time of writing there is a draft of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [WCAG20]. The [MWBP] make direct reference to WCAG 1.0 and many of the concepts described relate directly to those in that version. Like WCAG 1.0, MWBP 1.0 assumes content in HTML. At the time of writing WCAG 1.0 is the most widely used and understood. For these reasons this document makes reference to WCAG version 1.0. When new versions of referenced documents become accepted as W3C Recommendations, new versions of this document will be necesary as described in the section Longevity and Versioning in this document.

1.6 Longevity and Versioning

This document makes primary reference to [WCAG] and [MWBP]. New versions of these documents are expected to be produced during the life of this document. Especially it is based on [WCAG], the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 which are expected to become superseded by a new version possibly before this document is published. New versions of this document should be produced as soon as new versions of the referenced Recommendations are published and well understood.

1.7 Terminology

The accessibility documents referenced consist of guidelines and checkpoints. Mobile Web Best Practices contains Best Practices.

2. How People with Disabilities Use Mobile Devices for Web Access

3. How Barriers Experienced by Web Users with Disabilities Parallel those in the Mobile Context

While disabled users have involuntary disability, we can think of all mobile users as having a kind of voluntary “disability” due to their choice of technology (the mobile context) that parallels innate disability.

Users of mobile devices experience limitations. Users with disabilities, even with full-featured desktop devices, may experience certain physical, sensorial or cognitive limitations that are not related / relevant to those of the general mobile user.

Users of mobile devices experience limitations imposed by the features of devices and user agents and the environmental context in which they often access the Web. Note that mobile devices vary widely, not all the problems described are present on all models. the table below is not exhaustive, but has been selected to demonstrate the parallels between the two contexts of use.

Summary of Experience of Content Features by Users

The table below shows that in the example aspects, although the cause may be different in each context, the result is generally similar in both. Implementing accessibility guidelines will in many ways improve the experience for users in the mobile context. Similarly, implementing best practices for the mobile context will improve the experience for users with a range of disabilities.

4. How Mobile Web Best Practices can Benefit Users with Disabilities

By improving usability, all BPs help improve accessibility. This section describes the specific accessibility benefits and the ways in which some relate directly to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0.

As described in this section, many Mobile Web BPs have the added benefit of partial or complete compliance with certain WCAG 1.0 checkpoints. However, the accessibility guidelines are often more detailed or describe a different aspect of the same concept. It should not be assumed that following any BP will ensure accessibility. To ensure accessibility it is important to always consult the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

Each BP is covered to answer the following questions:

• How does it help especially users with disabilities? (otherwise no_added_benefit)
• Does the BP cover any WCAG CPs? If so
  • Additional effort required for WCAG compliance
  • How to leverage existing investment in BP.
  • If so, is BP adequate for WCAG?
  • Is BP correct?
  • Synergy/overlap and differences.
  • If you comply with MWBP, why not go a little further and...?
  • If you comply with MWBP, and are aiming for WCAG, you will have to...
  • How to do both at once.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?

Describe how the BP helps users with disabilities above and beyond the benefit to the general user in the mobile context. Users with disabilities benefit from the Mobile Web Best Practices like any other user. This paragraph focuses on the added benefits for their special needs of users with different disabilities. Best Practices that have no specific benefit for users with disabilities beyond that experienced by the general user in the mobile context is marked [no added benefit]

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?

Many Web sites wish to ensure that their content is both mobile aware and accessible to users with disabilities by complying with both the MWBPs and WCAG. For a site that complies with the MWBP it is useful to know how much has already been achieved towards accessibility, and how much more could be achieved for little extra effort.

Many BPs correspond directly to WCAG 1.0 checkpoints and complying with one automatically gives you compliance with the other, with no extra effort. For example, [USE_OF_COLOR] ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 2.1, “Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup” with no added effort.

With other BPs, a little extra effort or simply considering a more diverse range of user needs can achieve compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint. For example, [COLOR_CONTRAST] is intended to help moble users with monochrome displays or in poor lighting conditions. By considering also the needs of users with colour deficits (colour blindness) the same BP makes content accessible to more users and ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen.

Other BPs prohibit the use of features that can cause accessibility barriers. Complying with these BPs ensures that some WCAG checkpoints simply do not apply. For example, [NO_FRAMES], by excluding the use of frames, means that it is not necessary to comply with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 12.1, “Title each frame to facilitate frame identification and navigation”.

Many BPs have no relations to any WCAG 1.0 checkpoint and this is also noted.

To summarise, compliance with MWBP ensures that content already complies with WCAG 1.0 checkpoints 1.1, 2.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1, 6.3, 7.5, 9.4, 10.1, 10.2, 12.4 and 13.4, while 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 12.1, 12.2 simply do not apply. With some extra effort or simply considering different user needs, it is quite feasible to also comply with 2.2, 3.1, 6.1, 6.4, 7.4, 9.5, 11.1, 11.2, 12.3, 13.1, 13.2, 13.8 and 14.1.

Best Practices and their relationships to WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints

List of best practices:

• ACCESS_KEYS
• AUTO_REFRESH
• AVOID_FREE_TEXT
• BACKGROUND_IMAGE_READABILITY
• BALANCE
• CACHING
• CAPABILITIES
• CENTRAL_MEANING
• CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT
• CHARACTER_ENCODING_USE
• CLARITY
• COLOR_CONTRAST
• CONTENT_FORMAT_PREFERRED
• CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT
• CONTROL_LABELLING
• CONTROL_POSITION
• COOKIES
• DEFAULT_INPUT_MODE
• DEFICIENCIES
• ERROR_MESSAGES
• EXTERNAL_RESOURCES
• FONTS
• GRAPHICS_FOR_SPACING
• IMAGE_MAPS
• IMAGES_RESIZING
• IMAGES_SPECIFY_SIZE
• LARGE_GRAPHICS
• LIMITED
• LINK_TARGET_FORMAT
• LINK_TARGET_ID
• MEASURES
• MINIMIZE_KEYSTROKES
• MINIMIZE
• NAVBAR
• NAVIGATION
• NO_FRAMES
• NON-TEXT_ALTERNATIVES
• OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT
• PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT
• PAGE_SIZE_USABLE
• PAGE_TITLE
• POP_UPS
• PROVIDE_DEFAULTS
• REDIRECTION
• SCROLLING
• STRUCTURE
• STYLE_SHEETS_SIZE
• STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT
• STYLE_SHEETS_USE
• SUITABLE
• TAB_ORDER
• TABLES_ALTERNATIVES
• TABLES_LAYOUT
• TABLES_NESTED
• TABLES_SUPPORT
• TESTING
• THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY
• URIS
• USE_OF_COLOR
• VALID_MARKUP

Back to Best Practices list.

[THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY] Ensure that content provided by accessing a URI yields a thematically coherent experience when accessed from different devices

Refer to [THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: While some users with disabilities use the most advanced mobile devices to run their assistive technology properly, others need or prefer simpler models that are easier to use. For example, the elderly or those with cognitive disabilities. Users with limited dexterity may prefer older devices with larger keypads. those with limited vision may use devices with monochrome displays. Some assistive technology may not be compatible with new devices. This BP ensures that content is accessible using the widest possible range of devices.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[CAPABILITIES] Exploit device capabilities to provide an enhanced user experience

Refer to [CAPABILITIES] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[DEFICIENCIES] Take reasonable steps to work around deficient implementations

Refer to [DEFICIENCIES] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[TESTING] Carry out testing on actual devices as well as emulators

Refer to [TESTING] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: This BP is concerned with the characteristics of different devices, not different users, and as such does not specifically improve accessibility for users with disabilities. However, it also encourages content providers to also test “with specific features disabled, such as using text-only modes and with scripting disabled”. This is a way of checking compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoints 1.1, “Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element...” and 6.3, “Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported”.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Tip: You can improve accessibility when performing testing by involving users with a range of abilities (not only evaluation and development staff). Refer to the WAI resource “Involving Users in Web Accessibility Evaluation” for more information.

Back to Best Practices list.

[URIS] Keep the URIs of site entry points short

Refer to [URIS] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Users with motor disability who type URIs using the keyboard or use voice input, or who have dyslexia, may experience difficulty when entering long strings of text. Keeping the URIs short can help both groups of users. This BP deals with an aspect not considered in WCAG 1.0.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[NAVBAR] Provide only minimal navigation at the top of the page

Refer to [NAVBAR] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Implementing this BP benefits users of screen magnifiers and others who have a restricted field of vision as it ensures that they are more easily able to locate the main content of the page. Users with a motor disability or who use the keyboard for navigation will be able to view the main content of the page without difficult scrolling.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP deals with an aspect not considered in WCAG 1.0. However, explicitly identifying the navigation mechanisms will ultimately help understand and provide the functionality needed to comply with 13.5, “Provide navigation bars to highlight and give access to the navigation mechanism” and 13.6, “Group related links, identify the group (for user agents), and, until user agents do so, provide a way to bypass the group”.

Back to Best Practices list.

[BALANCE] Take into account the trade-off between having too many links on a page and asking the user to follow too many links to reach what they are looking for

Refer to [BALANCE] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Like all users of the small keypads found on mobile devices, users with motor disability may experience special difficulty in using the keyboard or other device to navigate between links. Users with cognitive disability may have difficulty concentrating on large numbers of links. Screen reader users may also have difficulty reading through and remembering a large number of links in order to decide which one they want. Given that human memory can only hold a limited number of items then having to recall more than that many links to choose the right one leads to serious difficulty for blind users. Reducing the number of links helps avoid these difficulties.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[NAVIGATION] Provide consistent navigation mechanisms

Refer to [NAVIGATION] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Refer to WCAG 1.0 Core Techniques: Navigation.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: Complying with this BP also ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 13.4, “Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner”, but considering the aspects covered in WCAG 1.0 Core Techniques: Navigation will clarify what is needed for all users.

Back to Best Practices list.

[ACCESS_KEYS] Assign access keys to links in navigational menus and frequently accessed functionality

Refer to [ACCESS_KEYS] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Some users, for example those with motor disability, are unable to use a mouse even when the context of use allows one. These persons often use only a keyboard or a device that emulates a keyboard. This situation parallels that of all users of mobile devices as these are not usually equipped with a mouse. Access keys may be helpful for all keyboard users. They are especially (perhaps only) useful when the browser allows the user to discover the keys that are assigned (some do, some don't).

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: Providing access keys are also defined as necessary for form controls (not made explicit in the BP but apparently implicit in “frequently accessed functionality”), this BP also ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 9.5, “Provide keyboard shortcuts to important links (including those in client-side image maps), form controls, and groups of form controls”. If it is not apparent from the content or shown by the device, provide a summary of access keys used in content on a separate page (but perhaps warn that access key assignments may be changed by the device in ways the author cannot predict).

Back to Best Practices list.

[LINK_TARGET_ID] Clearly identify the target of each link

Refer to [LINK_TARGET_ID] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Refer to WCAG 1.0 HTML Techniques: Link text. As the BP says “It is important to identify where a link leads so users can make an assessment of whether following it will be of interest to them”. While this is true for any user, those with diabilities may have greater difficulty in judging whether the retrieved content is what they expected and of returning to the location of the link in the previous page.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP goes some way to ensuring compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 13.1, “Clearly identify the target of each link”. However, to ensure accessibility it is important to understand that the user may read (or hear) the links in a page as part of a list of links without surrounding contextual information. For this reason it is important that the link text not lose its meaning when read out of context. Refer to WCAG 1.0 HTML Techniques: Link text gives more information.

Back to Best Practices list.

[LINK_TARGET_FORMAT] Note the target file's format unless you know the device supports it

Refer to [LINK_TARGET_FORMAT] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[IMAGE_MAPS] Do not use image maps unless you know the device supports them effectively

Refer to [IMAGE_MAPS] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[POP_UPS] Do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user

Refer to [POP_UPS] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Opening new windows or changing between open windows when the user is not aware what is happening can be confusing to those who can not see that a new or different window has opened, or can not see the window at all. The user may not understand why the back button does not work correctly (the new window has no history or different history list) and may close the last window of the browser instance and close the application inadvertently.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 10.1, “Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user” (by avoiding the problem: the BP is more restrictive).

Back to Best Practices list.

[AUTO_REFRESH] Do not create periodically auto-refreshing pages, unless you have informed the user and provided a means of stopping it

Refer to [AUTO_REFRESH] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Auto-refresh is especially confusing to users of screen readers. As the page is refreshed a screen reader may begin reading the updated content again from the beginning, causing confusion and preventing the user from ever reading the whole page.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: As long as auto-refresh is not used, this BP ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 7.4, “Until user agents provide the ability to stop the refresh, do not create periodically auto-refreshing pages”. At the time of writing user agents do not allow the user to disable auto-refresh (do they?). If auto-refresh is used, under the provision of the BP to inform the user and provide a means to deactivate it, the WCAG 1.0 CP is not complied with (WCAG requires that the user agent be used to turn it off, while the BP allows for the content to do it).

Back to Best Practices list.

[REDIRECTION] Do not use markup to redirect pages automatically. Instead, configure the server to perform redirects by means of HTTP 3xx codes

Refer to [REDIRECTION] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Like auto-refresh, using markup for redirection can confuse users, especially:

• Users who have difficulty concentrating attention, who may become confused when the content changes.
• People who read slowly may not have understood what is happening before they have finished reading.
• Screen readers may begin reading the page from the beginning, only to be interrupted by redirect or auto-refresh.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 7.5, “Until user agents provide the ability to stop auto-redirect, do not use markup to redirect pages automatically. Instead, configure the server to perform redirects”.

Back to Best Practices list.

[EXTERNAL_RESOURCES] Keep the number of externally linked resources to a minimum

Refer to [EXTERNAL_RESOURCES] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[SUITABLE] Ensure that content is suitable for use in a mobile context

Refer to [SUITABLE] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[CLARITY] Use clear and simple language

Refer to [CLARITY] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Refer to WCAG 1.0 Core Techniques: Comprehension.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP goes some of the way to ensuring compliance with 14.1, “Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content”, although the BP is concerned primarily with context of use, which was not contemplated in WCAG 1.0. WCAG emphasizes writing style and thematic content in all contexts. It also covers (in the explanation) 13.8 “Place distinguishing information at the beginning of headings, paragraphs, lists, etc.”

Back to Best Practices list.

[LIMITED] Limit content to what the user has requested

Refer to [LIMITED] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[PAGE_SIZE_USABLE] Divide pages into usable but limited size portions

Refer to [PAGE_SIZE_USABLE] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Smaller pages may help users with cognitive limitations who have difficulty with large amounts of text.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: No, but this BP goes some way toward complying with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 12.3, “Divide large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and appropriate”. However the WCAG checkpoint is much broader in scope, covering all usage contexts.

Back to Best Practices list.

[PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT] Ensure that the overall size of page is appropriate to the memory limitations of the device

Refer to [PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[SCROLLING] Limit scrolling to one direction, unless secondary scrolling cannot be avoided.

Refer to [SCROLLING] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: This BP enhances accessibility for users who have difficulty scrolling for whatever reason (device or physical limitation).

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[CENTRAL_MEANING] Ensure that material that is central to the meaning of the page precedes material that is not.

Refer to [CENTRAL_MEANING] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Putting the main content first helps keyboard-only users whether in a mobile context or not. It may also help users with cognitive disabilities who have difficulty locating the central information in a page full of navigation links. Users who can only read part of the page at a time, and who tend to start at the beginning, such as those using screen readers or sreeen magnifiers benefit from this BP.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP corresponds to 12.3, “Place distinguishing information at the beginning of headings, paragraphs, lists, etc.”. However, where the checkpoint is described as applicable to paragraphs, in the mobile context these units of content are often the complete page. It also relates to the spirit of WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 12.3, “Divide large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and appropriate”, although, like [PAGE_SIZE_USABLE], in a way not explicitly contemplated in the guidelines. This WCAG checkpoint is much broader in scope than the BP.

Back to Best Practices list.

[GRAPHICS_FOR_SPACING] Do not use graphics for spacing

Refer to [GRAPHICS_FOR_SPACING] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: No, but if you do use images for spacing that goes against WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.1, “When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information”.

Back to Best Practices list.

[LARGE_GRAPHICS] Do not use images that cannot be rendered by the device. Avoid large or high resolution images except where critical information would otherwise be lost

Refer to [LARGE_GRAPHICS] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[USE_OF_COLOR] Ensure that information conveyed with color is also available without color.

Refer to [USE_OF_COLOR] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: This BP benefits people with visual disabilities. Users may not be able to see colours or identify them correctly (colour deficit, colour blindness) or see the page at all (blind users). Users may have turned off the style sheet or use a browser that does not support CSS, or may need to use a special style sheet. These users may misinterpret or not percieve information expressed by colour alone.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 2.1, “Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup” with no added effort.

Back to Best Practices list.

[COLOR_CONTRAST] Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast

Refer to [COLOR_CONTRAST] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: People with low vision often have difficulty reading text that does not contrast with its background. This can be exacerbated if the person has a color vision deficiency that lowers the contrast even further. Adequate colour and brightness contrast make content readable.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP may ensure (using additional criteria) compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen. However, the BP is concerned with unfavourable ambient light and the ability of devices to display contrasting colour at all, while WCAG is primarily concerned with colour blindness, which may lead to different results.

Back to Best Practices list.

[BACKGROUND_IMAGE_READABILITY] When using background images make sure that content remains readable on the device

Refer to [BACKGROUND_IMAGE_READABILITY] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: As readability is compromised when there is a lack of contrast caused by background images, this BP helps users with low vision or colour vision deficit more than other users.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: Complying with this BP does not ensure compliance with any WCAG checkpoint. However it is related to WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 6.1, “Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets”. If the content is not readable without a background image provided by a stylesheet, this checkpoint is not met. If, on any device, the background image gives insufficient contrast with foreground image or text, WCAG checkpoint 2.2, “Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen” is not met.

Back to Best Practices list.

[PAGE_TITLE] Provide a short but descriptive page title

Refer to [PAGE_TITLE] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: People with visual disabilities will benefit from being able to differentiate content when multiple Web pages are open. For example, screen reader users may not be able to see at a glance the content of a window, and so identify it by the page title. People with cognitive disabilities, limited short-term memory and reading disabilities also benefit from the ability to identify content by its title. A descriptive page title also benefits people with severe mobility impairments whose mode of operation relies on audio when navigating between Web pages.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP goes some of the way to compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 13.2, “Provide metadata to add semantic information to pages and sites”.

Back to Best Practices list.

[NO_FRAMES] Do not use frames

Refer to [NO_FRAMES] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: While correctly designed and labelled frames are not inaccessible, equivalent content without frames is generally easier to use. It is easier to scan the whole content with a screen reader and to navigate with the keyboard.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP ensures that WCAG 1.0 checkpoints 12.1, “Title each frame to facilitate frame identification and navigation” and 12.2, “Describe the purpose of frames and how frames relate to each other if it is not obvious by frame titles alone” do not apply to the content.

Back to Best Practices list.

[STRUCTURE] Use features of the markup language to indicate logical document structure

Refer to [STRUCTURE] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Most visual users are able to scan a whole document at a glance. Many non-visual (for example, blind) users are unable to do this and access content starting at the top. When a document is structured with section headings a screen reader or suitable browser can create a table of contents on the fly. A browser may allow keyboard navigation between headings. Refer to WCAG 1.0 HTML Techniques: Section headings for more information.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.5, “Use header elements to convey document structure and use them according to specification” with no further effort.

Back to Best Practices list.

[TABLES_SUPPORT] Do not use tables unless the device is known to support them

Refer to [TABLES_SUPPORT] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit as tables may be used. Refer to [TABLES_ALTERNATIVES] for an explanation of the benefits of avoiding tables.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: As long as tables are not used in any adaptation of the content served, then WCAG 1.0 Guideline 5, “Create tables that transform gracefully” does not apply.

Back to Best Practices list.

[TABLES_NESTED] Do not use nested tables

Refer to [TABLES_NESTED] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Nested tables can be problematic for users of screen readers. As the screen reader is unable to differentiate between a data table (which conveys meaning) and a layout table (which should not), a screen reader may announce to the user each new table it encounters, and information such as the number of rows and columns the table contains. If tables are nested this can easily result in an excess of information and cause confusion. This best practice avoids the problem.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[TABLES_LAYOUT] Do not use tables for layout

Refer to [TABLES_LAYOUT] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Reading order: Using tables can easily cause incorrect reading order (the apparent visual sequence is not the same as that in the markup). Flexibility: if content is formatted with CSS, users can modify the style to suit their needs, with tables the content is locked in a grid. Browser support: not all browsers support tables, for example text-only browsers used with Braille output and many mobile browsers. Printing: tables are difficult to print, often not fitting on the page.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: If tables are not used for layout, then WCAG 1.0 checkpoints 5.3, “Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized” and 5.4, “If a table is used for layout, do not use any structural markup for the purpose of visual formatting”, do not apply.

Back to Best Practices list.

[TABLES_ALTERNATIVES] Where possible, use an alternative to tabular presentation

Refer to [TABLES_ALTERNATIVES] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: If tables are not used then WCAG 1.0 Guidelines 5, “Create tables that transform gracefully” does not apply.

Back to Best Practices list.

[NON-TEXT_ALTERNATIVES] Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element

Refer to [NON-TEXT_ALTERNATIVES] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Providing text equivalents for non-text content ensures flexibility. Text can be rendered in a diversity of ways such as speech, braille, print, different text sizes. Refer to WCAG 1.0 Core Techniques: Text equivalents. Designing content to be useful when rendered text-only (as required by the BP) requires the provision of text equivalents for non-text content and so may make content more accessible to users unable to see images or other non-text content for whatever reason.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: Providing a text equivalent for every non-text element ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 1.1 “Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element”. However, it is important to remember that non-text content is more than just images. The tests suggested in the BPs may not lead to adequately accessible content. Avoiding CSS image replacement and pictures of words implies using text and markup, thus avoiding the need for text alternatives and the accessibility problems caused by these techniques. This aspect of the BP goes some way to complying with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.1, “When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information”.

Tip: Using the alt and longdesc attributes adequately is not always a simple matter and the BPs provide no further guidance. Refer to WCAG 1.0 HTML techniques Short text equivalents for images (“alt-text”) and Long descriptions of images for further guidance.

Tip: As stated in the BP, if the user agent is not known to support the longdesc attribute of the img element (and additionally, until assistive technology is known to support it adequately), do rely on it. Provide in addition a separate [D] link adjacent to the image. Refer to WCAG 1.0 HTML technique Invisible d-links (note that this technique should not be considered deprecated in the mobile context, which was not anticipated when the techniques were written).

Back to Best Practices list.

[OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT] Do not rely on embedded objects or script

Refer to [OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Users may not be able or willing to install or use the plugins necessary for embedded objects. Users may be unable or unwilling to use script. Browsers may not support scripting or it may be disabled. This BP recommends using onclick for script rather than onkey and onmouse event handlers. In practice onclick is device independent and allows interaction with mouse or keyboard.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 6.3 “Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported...”, but be sure to follow the further guidance given in WCAG 1.0 and accompanying techniques. Using onclick for script rather than onkey and onmouse event handlers helps ensure compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 6.4, “For scripts and applets, ensure that event handlers are input device-independent”.

Back to Best Practices list.

[IMAGES_SPECIFY_SIZE] Specify the size of images in markup, if they have an intrinsic size

Refer to [IMAGES_SPECIFY_SIZE] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[IMAGES_RESIZING] Resize images at the server, if they have an intrinsic size

Refer to [IMAGES_RESIZING] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[VALID_MARKUP] Create documents that validate to published formal grammars

Refer to [VALID_MARKUP] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Refer to WCAG 1.0 HTML Techniques: The !DOCTYPE statement.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.2, “Create documents that validate to published formal grammars”. If the markup is the most recent version of a W3C recommendation it also helps to ensure compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 11.1, “Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported”. It helps with compliance with 11.2, “Avoid deprecated features of W3C technologies”.

Back to Best Practices list.

[MEASURES] Do not use pixel measures and do not use absolute units in markup language attribute values and style sheet property values

Refer to [MEASURES] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: In addition to the benefits described in the BP, using relative units of measure helps people with low vision by letting them increase text size in content so that they can read it.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.4, “Use relative rather than absolute units in markup language attribute values and style sheet property values” with no further effort.

Back to Best Practices list.

[STYLE_SHEETS_USE] Use style sheets to control layout and presentation, unless the device is known not to support them

Refer to [STYLE_SHEETS_USE] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Using CSS allows separation of content and presentation, enabling users to adjust presentation to suit their needs.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.3, “Use style sheets to control layout and presentation” with no further effort.

Back to Best Practices list.

[STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT] Organize documents so that if necessary they may be read without style sheets

Refer to [STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: When content is organized logically, it will be rendered in a meaningful order when style sheets are turned off or not supported. Visual font effects defined in CSS can not be relied upon in the mobile device and many users may not perceive them. Refer to WCAG 1.0 CSS Techniques: Using style sheet positioning and markup to transform gracefully and the explanation of the [FONTS] best practice in this document.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 6.1, “Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets” with no further effort. The BP recognises that style sheets may not be supported and that users may turn them off. However, it is important to remember that some users (for example, non-visual) may simply not perceive (see) their effect.

Back to Best Practices list.

[STYLE_SHEETS_SIZE] Keep style sheets small

Refer to [STYLE_SHEETS_SIZE] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[MINIMIZE] Use terse, efficient markup

Refer to [MINIMIZE] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT] Send content in a format that is known to be supported by the device

Refer to [CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[CONTENT_FORMAT_PREFERRED] Where possible, send content in a preferred format

Refer to [CONTENT_FORMAT_PREFERRED] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT] Ensure that content is encoded using a character encoding that is known to be supported by the device

Refer to [CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[CHARACTER_ENCODING_USE] Indicate in the response the character encoding being used

Refer to [CHARACTER_ENCODING_USE] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[ERROR_MESSAGES] Provide informative error messages and a means of navigating away from an error message back to useful information

Refer to [ERROR_MESSAGES] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Many users, but especially those with cognitive disabilities or even those with limited experience may have difficulty understanding default error messages and deciding on the correct acion to take. This BP aids understanding.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not ensure compliance with any WCAG 1.0 checkpoint, but it is related to checkpoint 13.4, “Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner” in that the BP encourages provision of consistent navigation in error pages.

Back to Best Practices list.

[COOKIES] Do not rely on cookies being available

Refer to [COOKIES] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[CACHING] Provide caching information in HTTP responses

Refer to [CACHING] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: no_added_benefit.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[FONTS] Do not rely on support of font related styling

Refer to [FONTS] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: If visual font effects achieved using CSS are used, non-visual users may have difficulty understanding the meaning of content. Refer also to the explanation of the [STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT] best practice in this document.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP goes some of the way to complying with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 6.1, “Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets”. As the font elements described by the BP are deprecated in recent versions of HTML, it also goes some way to meeting WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 11.2, “Avoid deprecated features of W3C technologies”.

Back to Best Practices list.

[MINIMIZE_KEYSTROKES] Keep the number of keystrokes to a minimum

Refer to [MINIMIZE_KEYSTROKES] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: While mobile devices have input devices such as numeric keypads that are awkward to use for text input. This BP is especially beneficial to users with limited dexterity who find text input even more difficult. It is not related to any specific WCAG 1.0 checkpoint.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: The intention of this BP is the use of keyboard shortcuts (referred to confusingly as “navigation keys”). If this is done, then this BP ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 9.5, “Provide keyboard shortcuts to important links (including those in client-side image maps), form controls, and groups of form controls”. However, when complying with the BP it is important to be aware that WCAG is more explicit in what it applies to than is the BP (which specifies only “items”).

Back to Best Practices list.

[AVOID_FREE_TEXT] Avoid free text entry where possible.

Refer to [AVOID_FREE_TEXT] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: As described in the explanation of [MINIMIZE_KEYSTROKES] in this document, this BP is especially beneficial to users with limited dexterity. It is not related to any specific WCAG 1.0 checkpoint.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[PROVIDE_DEFAULTS] Provide pre-selected default values where possible

Refer to [PROVIDE_DEFAULTS] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: While this BP is primarily concerned with the limitations of the input mechanism of the mobile device (for example, the keyboard), it also helps users who have difficulty using the input device. This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[DEFAULT_INPUT_MODE] Specify a default text entry mode, language and/or input format, if the device is known to support it

Refer to [DEFAULT_INPUT_MODE] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: This BP helps users in the same way as described in the [PROVIDE_DEFAULTS] section of this document. This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP does not correspond to any WCAG 1.0 provision.

Back to Best Practices list.

[TAB_ORDER] Create a logical order through links, form controls and objects

Refer to [TAB_ORDER] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Refer to WCAG 1.0 HTML Techniques: Keyboard access

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP ensure compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 9.4, “Create a logical tab order through links, form controls, and objects” with no further effort.

Back to Best Practices list.

[CONTROL_LABELLING] Label all form controls appropriately and explicitly associate labels with form controls

Refer to [CONTROL_LABELLING] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: Screen reader users who are unable visually determine the relationship between controls and their labels need to determine from markup which label identifies each form control.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP ensures compliance with WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 12.4, “Associate labels explicitly with their controls” with no further effort.

Back to Best Practices list.

[CONTROL_POSITION] Position labels so they lay out properly in relation to the form controls they refer to

Refer to [CONTROL_POSITION] to understand the Best Practice described in this section.

How does it help especially users with disabilities?: If controls are not explicitly associated with their labels (as described in the [CONTROL_LABELLING] best practice) screen readers use the position in markup of the control and the label to determine the relationship. However, for recent screen readers this is now unnecessary if there is explicit association.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: This BP corresponds to WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 10.2 “Until user agents support explicit associations between labels and form controls, for all form controls with implicitly associated labels, ensure that the label is properly positioned”. While the BP is concerned with reflowing and adapting content, WCAG is concerned to enable screen readers to determine the association in the absence of an explicit association in markup. However, this association of form labels with their controls by position for correct interpretation by screen readers is a convention, not fully described in W3C recommendations (WCAG 1.0 describes positioning of text input and list boxes but not checkboxes and radio buttons). The description in the BP is not adequate for accessibility purposes, and following the BP does not ensure compliance with the WCAG 1.0 checkpoint.

Tip: Use explcitly associated labels (refer to [CONTROL_LABELLING]), but if you can not, then avoid nesting the control inside the label element as it is not supported in an accessible way by most user agents.

5. How WCAG Compliance can Benefit All Mobile Web Users

Back to Best Practices list.

How Does it Help Users in the Mobile Context?

This section describes how the [WCAG] guideline or checkpoint helps the general user in the moile context above and beyond the special benefit for users with disabilities. Mobile users may benefit from the [WCAG] like users with disabilities. This paragraph focuses on the added benefits for the special needs of the general user of mobile devices. Checkpoints and fuidelines that have no specific benefit for mobile users beyond that experienced by the user with disabilities is marked [no added benefit].

Does it give me MWBP 1.0 compliance?

Many Web sites wish to ensure that their content is both mobile aware and accessible to users with disabilities by complying with both the MWBPs and WCAG. For a site that complies with [WCAG] it is useful to know how much has already been achieved, and how much more could be achieved for little extra effort.

Many [WCAG] guidelines and checkpoints correspond directly to [MWBP] best practices and complying with one automatically gives you compliance with the other, with no extra effort. For example, 2.1, “Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup” ensures compliance with BP [USE_OF_COLOR] “Ensure that information conveyed with color is also available without color” without any further effort.

With other [WCAG] provisions, a little extra effort or simply considering the diversity of devices and environmental factors of the mobile context can help achieve compliance with a [MWBP] best practice. For example, @@xxx.

Other [WCAG] provisions prohibit the use of features that can cause problems in the mobile context. Complying with these guidelines or checkpoints ensures that some BPs simply do not apply. For example, @@xxx.

Many [WCAG] provisions have no relation to any BP and this is also noted.

To summarise, compliance with [WCAG] ensures that content already complies with BPs @@xxx while @@xxx simply do not apply. With some extra effort or simply considering different user needs, it is quite feasible to also comply with @@xxx.

1.1 “Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element...”

Refer to WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 1.1 to understand this section.

This WCAG checkpoint also ensures compliance with BP [NON-TEXT_ALTERNATIVES] “Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element” with no further effort. However, the concept of equivalence is more sophisticated in the field of accessibility and it is important to ensure that the text really is equivalent [write this more clearly...].

2.1 “Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup” [Priority 1]

Refer to WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 2.1 to understand this section.

How does it help mobile users?: Mobile devices may have monochrome screens, often do not have good color contrast and are often used in less-than-ideal lighting conditions and so like non-visual users or those with colour pereception deficit they may be unable to percieve information conveyed by colour. This WCAG checkpoint ensures that users who cannot perceive colour correctly for whatever reason will be able to understand and operate the content.

Does it give me MWBP compliance?: This checkpoint should ensure compliance with BP [USE_OF_COLOR] “Ensure that information conveyed with color is also available without color” without any further effort. It also helps to achieve compliance with BP [STRUCTURE] by ensuring that structural elements are used rather than colour

6.2 “Ensure that equivalents for dynamic content are updated when the dynamic content changes”

Refer to WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 6.2 to understand this section.

How does it help mobile users?: Providing equivalents for objects and scripts and ensuring the equivalents are updated helps users who can not perceive this conent due to device limitations as described in BP [OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT].

Does it give me MWBP compliance?: No. Although BP [OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT] is partly concerned with equivalents, providing an equivalent is not sufficient to ensure compliance (the BP requires that objects and script not even be delivered to devices that do not support them and should be avoided where possible). However, objects and scripts are types of dynamic content and providing equivalents for them and ensuring the equivalents are updated goes some way to enabling (is a precondition for) compliance with the BP.

13.2 “Provide metadata to add semantic information to pages and sites”

Refer to WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 13.2 to understand this section.

How does it help mobile users?: Like users with no vision or limited field of vision, or cognitive disability, mobile users with small screens may have difficulty scanning and summarising the overall content of a page. Perhaps the most useful item of metadata for a page is a descriptive page title, to provide a quick description of the content of a page.

Does it give me MWBP compliance?: Including the page title ensures compliance with [PAGE_TITLE] “Provide a short but descriptive page title” with no further effort.

6. WCAG and Mobile Web Best Practices Together

As described in this document, the two recommendations are complementary. the motivation for adopting them may be different (for example, commercial, regulatory, altruistic). It has been described elsewhere that retrofitting existing websites for compliance with another set of non-functional requirements is much more costly than complying during the design and development phases. the cost of late implementation (content repair, staff training, redesigning workflow) separately may also be much greater than doing both together, due to the synergies between them.

7. Achieving usability for All

Both the Mobile Web Best Practices and WCAG provide information about the possible barriers to users, and advice about how to avoid them. Compliance does not guarantee usability or accessibility. Barriers may arise other than those described and content providers should avoid them by performing user testing [cite both Recs]. Other solutions than those described may be found to the barriers. User testing should always include a full range of users, including those with different disabilities.

References

For the latest version of any W3C specification please consult the list of W3C Technical Reports.